• Like How I Live Now and Prince Avalanche, C.O.G. is content to show its lead characters, to never explain their backstories through exposition.
  • In some ways, it works. We know enough about David’s (Jonathan Groff) history that we are intrigued by his emotional journey.
  • But that just leads to the film’s primary flaw. Writer/Director Kyle Patrick Alvarez detaches from David’s psyche, never delving too deeply into the character’s feelings or emotional responses to external stimulus. When ruffian Curly (ever reliable Corey Stoll) implicitly threatens David, we see the latter’s physical response, but we do not feel his affect. Ditto that for the movie’s other mini-climaxes. By not giving Groff space to portray David’s emotions, Alvarez keeps us at a distance from the protagonist.
  • Which is doubly odd because the director doesn’t make the same mistake with the movie’s less important characters. We feel Curly’s loneliness, frustration and social awkwardness before and after it boils into inappropriate desperation. We feel Jon’s (Dennis O’Hare) anger and self-delusion. We even feel Paul (Sean Ghazi) and Martha’s (Casey Wilson) anxiety over Jon’s erratic behavior.
  • So why does Alvarez distance us from David? I don’t know, but I do know the decision awkwardly renders David secondary in his own coming of age. He is never the most interesting character in C.O.G, a fact that proves problematic insofar as he’s the only one present throughout.
  • It’s also a problem because we do not always understand David’s decisions, at least not to the extent we ought. Such as when he flirts with religion.
  • Still, C.O.G. has its share of merits, as well. First and most significantly, its actors vitalize it, with Dennis O’Hare standing out as especially effective. Stoll and Groff are also very good.
  • Second, despite an episodic plot, Alvarez develops secondary characters well.
  • The director ends this film perfectly.
  • The soundtrack is also effective, as are the scenes in which David bonds with Pedro (Eloy Mendez), despite a language barrier that prevents proper conversation.
  • Moreover, C.O.G. is strong thematically, effectively analyzing the cultural differences between socioeconomic statuses without ever being too direct.
  • Yet, I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask: given that this is an adaptation of a David Sedaris essay, where is the humor?
  • There is a lot to like about C.O.G, but unfortunately there is just as much to dislike. It is average filmmaking.
  • Final Grade: C

8 thoughts on “C.O.G.

    • I am certainly not recommending you change your mind on that point. I expected something much more funny, given it’s a Sedaris adaptation. There is some dark humor, especially in the opening, but not enough to sustain it.

  1. I know this film seemed mediocre but i enjoyed it quite a bit. the writer director is gutsy for choosing Sedaris’ short story to adapt, his voice is hard to capture imho, and this is an okay attempt. I think i appreciate it for at least not butchering it. XD

    • Not butchering it is a good way of explaining it. I don’t think it captures Sedaris’ wit or humor, really, at least outside of the opening train sequence (which is vintage Sedaris). But it isn’t a terrible attempt at capturing the author’s observations about life.

      I just wish it had prioritized David a bit, had let us get to know the protagonist as well as we did the side characters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s